Below are links to the published decisions of some of our landmark cases in which we have participated and which have impacted the law in the State of Nevada.
Very few of any attorney's cases are selected for publication by the court. Only cases that have a significant impact on the law are selected for publication. This means that they consititute legal precedent that can properly be cited for legal concepts. We have done many trials, only a small percentage have gone up on appeal.
YEE V.WEISS, 110 Nev. 657 , 877 P.2d 510 (1994)
This was a commercial landlord tenant case. This was the first time that Nevada recogized an "Estoppel Ceritificate". That is a paper signed by a tenant to bind the tenant, in the event the landlord is selling or refinancing the leased property.
LFC MARKETING GROUP, INC., v. CEBE W. LOOMIS, ANDREW F. LOOMIS, CHRISTIAN W. LOOMIS and JUST C. LOOMIS, 116 Nev. 896 , 8 P.3d 841 (2000)
This case dealt with a unique aspect of "piercing the corporate veil." Generally, piercing the corporate veil means disregarding a corporation to hold the owner liable for the company's debt. In this case, Nevada recognized what is called "reverse piercing" of the corporate veil. We were able to make a company, owned by the jugdgement debtor's brother, pay the debt.
This shows the degree of creativity and dogged pursuit that we bring to bear in order to recover for our clients.
GLENDA LEE BESNILIAN v. GIZELE WILKINSON, SILVA CHANG, and GEORGE BESNILIAN, 117 Nev. 519 , 25 P.3d 187 (2001)
This was basically an elder exploitation case. My client's stepdaughter convinced her father, my client's husband, to sign over his interest in the home owned by the client and the father for 30 years. The father died and the stepdaughter tried to evict the stepmother from the house.
In this case, we were able to use Nevada homestead law to protect the widow's ownership of the home. The decision represented a significant change in the law of real property in Nevada. The lawyer on the other side of this case now warns his clients that if they are unfortunate enough to have a strong-willed lawyer like Richard Hil on the other side of a case, he may get the law changed.
DAYSIDE INC..A NEVADA CORPORATION v. THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR CARSON CITY, AND THE HOHNORABLE WILLIAM A. MADDOX, DISTRICT JUDGE, RESPONDENTS, AND PARKWAY MANOR INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. 119 Nev. 404 , 75 P.3d 384 (2003)
This was a very complicated construction case. We represented the general contractor. The owner failed to pay our client, yet he lied and told all the subcontractors and suppliers that he had paid. As a result, the general contractor ended up in a lawsuit with approximately 25 subcontractors. On behalf of the general contractor, we produced and coordinated over 250,000 pages of documents pertaining to the contruction of a apartment complex in Carson City, Nevada.
The trial court ruled that the general contractor had contractually waived its right to claim a mechanic's lien on the completed $10,000,000+ apartment complex that had been turned over for the owner to operate. This was a petition to the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, to reinstate the mechanics lien. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that freedom of contract was a paramount right, and refused to reinstate the lien.
That being said, just months later, the Nevada legislature dramatically overhauled Nevada law to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in Dayside. We ended up taking the case to an 8-week trial.
PANKOPF V. PETERSON, 124 Nev. 43, 175 P.3d 910 (2008)
This was another construction case. We represented the architect. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims because of his failure to comply with Nevada's construction defect statutes. The Supreme Court clarified the law, that the construction defect laws only apply to a completed structure. On an interesting note, the case was begun during the construction phase of the project, and by the time the Supreme Court decided the case, the project was complete.
CARSTARPHEN V. MILSNER, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Nev. 2009)
This was a ten-year odyssey. The case pertained to unfounded allegations of mismanagement made by a minority shareholder. It began in state court and then moved to a second lawsuit in federal court.
This first opinion dealt with the extremely complicated procedural issue of what effect a federal court should give to a state court judgment. This was an extremely complicated case.
The second opinion , 693 F Supp 2d 1247 (D Nev. 2010), dealt with whether or not the minority shareholder had complied with the procedural requirements to bring a "derivative" lawsuit. That is, when the shareholder brings a claim for alleged damages to the company. For example, when the controlling shareholder takes money or property from the corporation and refuses to return it. The court ruled that he had adequately stated his claim, but a subsequent decision of the Nevada Supreme Court calls that decision into serious question.
In a third decision, 2011 WL 4916620 (D Nev. 2011), the federal court substantially pared back the plaintiff's claims because he had no evidence.
Finally, in a fourth decision, the Nevada Supreme Court allowed the state court case to be reactivated after a dismissal because the plaintiff had not brought his case to trial within 5 years. This opinion shows that "anything" can happen on an appeal. Justice Pickering's dissent setsforth what really happened.
CARSTARPHEN V. MILSNER, 128 Nev. (Adv. Op. 5), 270 P32 1251 (2012)
NV DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION V. KAWAHARA, 131 Nev. (Adv. Opin. 42), 351 P.3d, 746 (June 25, 2015). This is a very interesting opinion, en banc (by the entire court, not just a panel). For over a year, I asked every lawyer and judge I spoke to how this case should be resolved. They all got it wrong! But, as the Nevada Supreme Court held: I was right.